FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS...
Bush has won. A few general preliminary points:

1. I am neither overly surprised nor overly disappointed. No political analyst, I don't know why he won. It could be as simple as the 'known devil unknown angel' argument or something much more convoluted. I do remember reading many people's opinions who said that Bush has made mistakes but they cannot see Kerry in the White House too. In this case, for all his mistakes, Bush managed the nation in one of the most shaky periods in recent times. He is a good man and he can improve. Now that he knows what people have criticized him for, he can work on those points. In case of Kerry, all they had were promises.

2. However, as a friend said to me, Bush may be a good president, but the rest of the world would like to see Kerry win the election. Bush's toughest job (apart from the usual ones) would be to reestablish American good-will in the world, as well as win the confidence of similar people in his own country.

3. In a way, the next four years pose an even greater test for Bush. Like I mentioned above, he now knows all the actions which he has been criticized for. Thanks to people like Kerry and Michael Moore, those actions and policies have been clearly enumerated in the last two years and brought out in the open. So now his job is to account for those actions, at the same time preserving his core convictions and the party agenda. That's going to be hard. Bringing hope and stability to a nation which has been in turmoil is almost as difficult as inspiring the nation during the period of turmoil. This mopping up operation involves soothing many ruffled feathers, and slowly but surely buttressing affected social systems. That's why, since the beginning, even though I liked Kerry slightly more than Bush, I wouldn't have minded giving Bush another chance.
It remains to be seen how he plays his cards in the next four years. More than any other time, this is when he will be under radar. If, at the end of that time, the nation in all it's domestic and foreign manifestations is in no better condition than it is now, he should squarely be forced to resign.

4. I do feel sorry about gay couples though, now that many states have passed the anti-gay marriage bill. I believe that they are being the innocent victims of the capriciousness of political jargon and constitutional punctillios. Why should their fate be dependent on how the constitution defines marriage? The whole issue is that they will not be subject to the same financial benefits as married couples. Since these include insurance benefits, I don't see why not recognizing their relationship as 'marriage' has anything to do with awarding them spouse associated insurance in times of severe illness. That seems to me to be an unfair action. If one of them is sufffering from a terminal illness, they have the humane right to receive something akin to spouse associated insurance benefits, whether we call their partner a 'spouse' or not. Direct humanitarian policies should not have anything to do with textbook and constitutional definitions of relationships.